2025 JC1 ASRJC P1A3 Essay Outlines

P1A3 questions for reference 1. How justifiable is it for a country to shut its door on refugees? (SRJC 2015 J1 Promo) 2. How important is loyalty in the world today? (AJC 2017 J1 MYCT) 3. Is a longer life expectancy always desirable? (ASRJC 2021 J1 Promo) 4. How effective has your government been in maintaining harmony in your society? (SAJC 2017) 5. Citizenship is nothing but a piece of paper. Is this true of your society? (SRJC 2016 Promo) Question 1 1. How justifiable is it for a country to shut its door on refugees? (SRJC 2015 J1 Promo) Question Analysis Issue: What reasons can a (recipient) country have for not accepting refugees? What moral and pragmatic considerations can we weigh? Context: Global Situation today: a great surge in number of refugees seeking a safe place in a foreign country (can be either in a developed or developing country) Conceptual Understanding: • Demonstrate the ability to see connections across topics. e.g. How war and conflict can precipitate refugee crises; how the issue of refugees is as much a politics and governance issue as it is an international relations one; how the environment crisis could trigger a refugee crisis, etc. • Demonstrate the ability to appreciate different contexts. E.g. In the context of wealthier countries, shutting doors on refugees would seem to be much more unjustifiable, as compared to the context of poorer countries. Key words: ‘a country’: any country – both developed and developing countries, must be across national borders ‘shut its door’: not allowing refugees to come in, not allowing cross-border migration of refugees ‘refugees’: people who are forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution or natural disaster, political and economic refugees ‘Justifiable’: based on moral and pragmatic reasons – look at what should and what can be done, weighing consequences accepting refugees would have on the recipient country: moral and pragmatic considerations are to be discussed Moral reasoning:

• Humanitarian reasons: plight of the refugees – would not taking them in be tantamount to condemning them to death since going back to the country of origin would likely mean a serious threat to life? • When there is a conflict between the moral duty of a government towards its own people and in ensuring basic human rights of the refugees, how should a government decide? Pragmatic Reasoning • The implications of accepting and not accepting refugees, e.g. international fallout/backlash and the sentiments of its citizens; cost to economy, safety, resources. • Is there a viable alternative of responding to the desperate needs of refugees without hosting them, eg tackling the existing problem which led to refugees fleeing the country? • Would allowing refugees lead to an even greater, uncontrollable influx of more refugees? Significant aspects/areas to be discussed (5W1H, Multiple Perspectives, Significant Trends, SPECTRAM): • Consider economic, social and cultural, internal and external political climate, environment, and humanitarian factors that could contribute to the acceptance or rejection of refugees Possible Stands • There is little justification for a country to shut its door to refugees. • It is largely justifiable for a country to shut its door to refugees. Reasons why there is little justification for a country to shut its door to refugees Reasons why it is largely justifiable for a country to shut its door to refugees It is unconscionable for a country, especially developed countries, to shut its door to the millions of desperate refugees fleeing war, persecution and hunger, as it is essentially condemning them to death. • The Rohingya people have faced decades of systematic discrimination, statelessness and targeted violence in Rakhine State, Myanmar. Such persecution has forced Rohingya women, girls, boys and men into Bangladesh for many years. The events of August 2017 triggered by far the largest and fastest refugee influx into Bangladesh. Since then, an estimated 745,000 Rohingya—including more than 400,000 children—have fled into Cox’s Bazar. In Myanmar, entire villages were burned to the ground, families were separated and killed, and women and girls were gang raped. Most of the people who It is justifiable for a country to not accept refugees when she does not have the ability to accommodate them, especially when refugees come in unmanageable numbers, as this may only prove to be detrimental for both refugees and the local society in the long run. • It is estimated that more than half of the Lebanese population is living below the poverty line, while a shocking 9 out of 10 Syrian refugees require humanitarian assistance to meet their basic needs Lebanon is hosting about 1.5 million Syrian refugees, the equivalent of the entire population of Canada and most of Mexico flowing into the United States within a short period of time. Lebanon’s refugee problem has since caused a deteriorating humanitarian crisis. The Lebanese blame the strains of their country on the significant

escaped were severely traumatized after witnessing unspeakable atrocities. These people found temporary shelter in refugee camps around Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, which is now home to the world’s largest refugee camp. https://www.unocha.org/myanmar number of Syrian refugees who remain in the country. • https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy- analysis/lebanese-are-tired-hosting-syrian- refugees • https://www.unhcr.org/lb/wp- content/uploads/sites/16/2024/03/At-a- glance-2024.pdf Beyond the moral justifications, countries accepting refugees have much to gain from doing so, such as economic benefits and heightened clout and reputation that could put them at an international advantage, thus giving little justification to anti-refugee policies. • In the United States, a study found that between 1990 and 2014, each refugee resettled cost the government $15,000, but after refugees have been in the U.S. for 20 years, they’ve paid an average of $21,000 more in taxes than they cost the government, pointing to an overall economic gain associated with refugee resettlement. Across the world, countries that have accepted refugees have seen increases in median income and gross domestic product due to refugees’ ability to start new businesses and replace aging populations. In Australia, a 2019 report found that each refugee business created adds an additional $98,200 to the economy per year. When a refugee starts a business in Australia, they save the government over $33,000 in welfare payments and generate almost $10,000 in tax revenue. Refugees’ entrepreneurial spirit can be an immense benefit to the economies of their new homes. • https://www.icmc.net/2020/07/14/refugee s-good-or-bad-for-economy/ • In 2021, UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi commended Lisbon’s exemplary refugee policies over the years. Portugal has consistently been a champion of the refugee cause. The country’s efforts to uphold refugee It is justified for countries to be cautious in their refugee policies and adopt a predominantly close- border approach as they are aware that a lenient refugee stance may be exploited and only serve to put their country’s national security and citizens at risk. It is justified for countries to be cautious in their refugee policies and adopt a predominantly close- border approach as they are aware that a lenient refugee stance may be exploited and only serve to put their country’s national security and citizens at risk. • In 2023, 351,000 asylum-seekers entered Germany, more than the population of Germany’s former capital Bonn. In that same year, Germany recorded a 5.5 per cent increase in registered crimes compared to the previous year, according to official statistics. The nu